Wynn Resorts founder Steve Wynn has been revealed as an
alleged abuser of women and our governor and attorney general say the casino cannot possibly bear his name. Countless
women no doubt share that view with Governor Baker and AG Healey.
But if all Wynn Resorts had to do now was devise a new casino
moniker, the folks running the show would be sitting prettier than a high
roller in a penthouse suite.
With the Massachusetts Gaming Commission trying to determine
if persons in the company hierarchy other than Wynn helped conceal Wynn’s reputed
history of sexual misdeeds in its license application, Wynn Resorts could
forfeit its right to do business here.
“A central question,” Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby has
said, “is what did the (Wynn Resorts) board of directors and staff know, and
when did they know it, about the settlement (with Wynn’s woman accuser) and the
associated allegations. That’s a
critical point for us and the public of Massachusetts to know ASAP.”
Healy says, “I’m not convinced the company should have a
license at all.”
Elaine Driscoll, gaming commission spokesperson, says,
“Currently, all options are on the table.”
The tales of sexual abuse swirling around Wynn are being
treated, as they should, with utmost seriousness. Wynn Resorts, a publicly traded company, did
the right thing in bouncing him.
License revocation by the state of Massachusetts is a whole
other matter.
As bad and as reprehensible as Wynn’s behavior may have
been, I don’t see how the commission can justify revoking his former company’s
license at this advanced point in the development of the casino.
This betting mecca on the Mystic is on schedule to open in
mid-2019.
First, there’s the issue of ownership. Wynn holds only 12%
of the stock in Wynn Resorts. Punishing
the many who own 88% because of the alleged actions of the one who owns 12%
would not be fair to the 88%. (It would be fair to compel Wynn to
liquidate his stake in the company so that he can no longer profit from it, but that's a matter for the company and securities regulators to decide.)
Secondly, although Wynn was clearly in the wrong not to
inform the gaming commission of his dealings with women who had accused him of
abuse, too much has transpired in the development of the casino, too much money
has been expended, too many lives have changed courses, and too many
interlocking, far-reaching moves have been made since the casino was licensed in
2014 to turn the project on its head now.
After years of planning, strategizing, investing, site preparation and building, we’re
seeing the casino as the amazing project it was destined to be when Wynn
Resorts committed to spending $2.4 billion dollars on it. There’s never been anything like it on this scale in Massachusetts, and I say that as someone who never gambles and will
set foot in the casino just once to satisfy my curiosity as to its excesses and
spectacles. We’re also seeing that Wynn,
despite having been the project’s public face and its most persuasive salesman,
was just one component of this complex, multi-year undertaking.
By 2014, the project had achieved a life and a force all its
own. Had Wynn, who is 76, died in 2016,
it would have gone on without him. So
should it now that he’s been dishonorably discharged.
Thirdly, if the commission takes back the Wynn Resorts
license, forcing the company to sell the unfinished casino, what you’ll have is
a fire sale. In distress, the company
would never get the price it would if it were selling an up-and-running casino at
a time of its choosing. Post-fire sale,
can anyone doubt that Wynn Resorts would sue the Commonwealth for hundreds of
millions in lost profits and damages? Company
shareholders would demand it. One hell
of a lawsuit it would be. If the state lost, we the taxpayers would be on the
hook. Talk about a bad gamble.
I end with a question on requiring Wynn Resorts to ditch the
“Wynn Boston Harbor” name: Is it the state’s business to tell businesses what
to call themselves?
If Wynn Resorts makes the judgment that keeping Wynn’s name
on its Massachusetts casino (and others) is good for business – and who’s to
say it might not be, given we’re talking about enterprises founded on a vice
and sustained by delusion and human weakness – I don’t believe the state has
the right to deprive the company of its preferred label. (Remember, we’re
living in Trump’s world now. Presidents can pay off porn stars and no one
really cares.)
If Wynn Resorts is willing to risk offending women and
hurting its bottom line with a controversial name choice, who are we, the
public in whose name our government acts, to say they can’t?
No comments:
Post a Comment